4 ms·

I'm not sure why people here call it a failure. The children who got a laptop have reached superior skill in using computers, while it seems like not sacrificin

I'm not sure why people here call it a failure. The children who got a laptop have reached superior skill in using computers, while it seems like not sacrificing any other capability. That seems like a great result, skilled computer use is a highly valuable skill.

crooked-v 10mo ago
A lot of people seem to have thought the progression would be "1. Give computers; 2. ???; 3. Better at everything".
- jazzyjackson 10mo ago
  Inspired by the computer in the wall in 1999 Sugata Mitra in which yes, just having a computer exist as a local curiosity lead to kids teaching themselves https://waack.org/2010/04/27/put-more-computers-outside-the-classroom/ https://waack.org/2010/04/27/put-more-computers-outside-the-... https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_kids_can_teach_themselves https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_kids_can_teach_themse...
alephnerd 10mo ago
The tens of millions per year spent on OLPC could have been better applied to programs that have demonstrated tangible positive impact on human capital development in developing countries, such as free meal programs [0], early childhood developmental screening [1], and other evidence-based policies. Heck, most policymakers in LDCs panned the program at the time as well not actually prioritizing the aid that was needed [2] [0] - https://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Bonds.pdf https://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Bonds.pdf [1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859813/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859813/ [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170210165101/http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/12/01/laptop/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170210165101/http://edition.cn...
- jazzyjackson 10mo ago
  Bit like the argument that we shouldn't have gone to the moon
  - tvshtr 10mo ago
    Not a bit like, exactly like. It's a false dichotomy.
    - lurk2 10mo ago
      It’s not a false dichotomy at all. There is a finite set of resources that can be deployed at any given time. $1 spent on a laptop is $1 that isn’t going to medicine. This usually a curve rather than a straight line (so usually you’re better off with some combination of both), but this doesn’t really apply to a situation where your limiting factor is dollars rather than the factors of production.
      - jazzyjackson 10mo ago
        There actually isn't a finite set of resources when we're talking about human capital. Motivation and inspiration and incentive come into play, and as it happens different people are inspired to work on different things.
        alephnerd 10mo ago
        > There actually isn't a finite set of resources when we're talking about human capital Ever heard of something called a budget? Teachers, aid workers, doctors, and others need to get paid. Their suppliers need to get paid. Infrastructure needs to be built. All of that costs money.
        jazzyjackson 10mo ago
        So what, there's only so much money? Or does money represent the amount of work people are willing to do? My point is simply that the amount of productivity a given population can exercise is not bound to the amount of money in circulation.
marcosdumay 10mo ago
Yes, it was a clear success. It not only did they improve the education of several children and gathered valuable information on how we can try it better next time, they also scared an oligopolistic industry into diversifying their products and supplying several needs that were ignored. That said, OLPC was extremely ambitious. I don't think they achieved any of the project's objectives. They get a lot of criticism because of that, and it's all ridiculously unfair.
- rayiner 10mo ago
  Many people thought that giving kids computers would make the smarter and more generally educated, not just give them better skills with computers.
  - marcosdumay 10mo ago
    Many people though that giving kids entire new ways to access knowledge and cooperate on their projects would make them smarter and more generally educated. And honestly, if you think that's stupid, I'm not really interested on whatever else you think on the subject. It happened to not work for several reasons, some of them mistakes from the OLPC project, but insisting it's an inevitable result is just uninformed blabber.
    - lurk2 10mo ago
      > but insisting it's an inevitable result is just uninformed blabber. There’s one failed program indicating that it didn’t work. Are you aware of any successful programs showing that it could?
      - jacquesm 10mo ago
        Well, the BBC had a whole program around getting schools into computing and it worked out fabulously well, so yes. It indirectly ended up giving us a novel processor that is used in just about everything as well.
lurk2 10mo ago
The level of technical aptitude the average westerner has just by proxy of being surrounded by electronics is one of those things like running water that gets taken completely for granted. Even a lifelong ditch digger is going to benefit from learning how to send and receive email, and in 2005 it was not a given that he would have.

crooked-v 10mo ago

A lot of people seem to have thought the progression would be "1. Give computers; 2. ???; 3. Better at everything".

jazzyjackson 10mo ago
Inspired by the computer in the wall in 1999 Sugata Mitra in which yes, just having a computer exist as a local curiosity lead to kids teaching themselves https://waack.org/2010/04/27/put-more-computers-outside-the-classroom/ https://waack.org/2010/04/27/put-more-computers-outside-the-... https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_kids_can_teach_themselves https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_kids_can_teach_themse...

alephnerd 10mo ago

The tens of millions per year spent on OLPC could have been better applied to programs that have demonstrated tangible positive impact on human capital development in developing countries, such as free meal programs [0], early childhood developmental screening [1], and other evidence-based policies. Heck, most policymakers in LDCs panned the program at the time as well not actually prioritizing the aid that was needed [2] [0] - https://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Bonds.pdf https://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Bonds.pdf [1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859813/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859813/ [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170210165101/http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/12/01/laptop/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170210165101/http://edition.cn...

jazzyjackson 10mo ago
Bit like the argument that we shouldn't have gone to the moon
- tvshtr 10mo ago
  Not a bit like, exactly like. It's a false dichotomy.
  - lurk2 10mo ago
    It’s not a false dichotomy at all. There is a finite set of resources that can be deployed at any given time. $1 spent on a laptop is $1 that isn’t going to medicine. This usually a curve rather than a straight line (so usually you’re better off with some combination of both), but this doesn’t really apply to a situation where your limiting factor is dollars rather than the factors of production.
    - jazzyjackson 10mo ago
      There actually isn't a finite set of resources when we're talking about human capital. Motivation and inspiration and incentive come into play, and as it happens different people are inspired to work on different things.
      - alephnerd 10mo ago
        > There actually isn't a finite set of resources when we're talking about human capital Ever heard of something called a budget? Teachers, aid workers, doctors, and others need to get paid. Their suppliers need to get paid. Infrastructure needs to be built. All of that costs money.
        jazzyjackson 10mo ago
        So what, there's only so much money? Or does money represent the amount of work people are willing to do? My point is simply that the amount of productivity a given population can exercise is not bound to the amount of money in circulation.

marcosdumay 10mo ago

Yes, it was a clear success. It not only did they improve the education of several children and gathered valuable information on how we can try it better next time, they also scared an oligopolistic industry into diversifying their products and supplying several needs that were ignored. That said, OLPC was extremely ambitious. I don't think they achieved any of the project's objectives. They get a lot of criticism because of that, and it's all ridiculously unfair.

rayiner 10mo ago
Many people thought that giving kids computers would make the smarter and more generally educated, not just give them better skills with computers.
- marcosdumay 10mo ago
  Many people though that giving kids entire new ways to access knowledge and cooperate on their projects would make them smarter and more generally educated. And honestly, if you think that's stupid, I'm not really interested on whatever else you think on the subject. It happened to not work for several reasons, some of them mistakes from the OLPC project, but insisting it's an inevitable result is just uninformed blabber.
  - lurk2 10mo ago
    > but insisting it's an inevitable result is just uninformed blabber. There’s one failed program indicating that it didn’t work. Are you aware of any successful programs showing that it could?
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      Well, the BBC had a whole program around getting schools into computing and it worked out fabulously well, so yes. It indirectly ended up giving us a novel processor that is used in just about everything as well.

lurk2 10mo ago

The level of technical aptitude the average westerner has just by proxy of being surrounded by electronics is one of those things like running water that gets taken completely for granted. Even a lifelong ditch digger is going to benefit from learning how to send and receive email, and in 2005 it was not a given that he would have.